M. Tech. / Objective: This study was conducted in order to compare the effectiveness of Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with guided imagery versus only guided imagery in the treatment of chronic neck pain and stiffness. Chiropractic SMT is aimed at treating neck pain as well as increasing the range of motion (ROM) of the neck. Guided imagery is aimed at reducing stress levels within the patient with a secondary effect of reducing tension in the neck muscles. This study therefore also has a secondary purpose to assess the effects of stress on chronic neck pain. It was hypothesised that Chiropractic SMT combined with guided imagery would be more effective in the reduction of chronic neck pain than guided imagery or alone. This is based on the fact that Chiropractic SMT has been exhaustively proven to be effective in treating chronic neck pain as well as increasing cervical range of motion. Guided imagery has also been proven to be effective in reducing stress even though there has not been enough research on its effect on chronic neck pain and cervical range of motion. Methods: Patients were recruited by means of placing advertisements in and around the University of Johannesburg. Patients that presented to the Chiropractic day clinic with chronic neck pain between the ages of 18 and 30 were included in this study. The participants were then randomly placed in one of two groups. Group A received four sessions of Chiropractic SMT combined with two sessions of guided imagery while Group B received two sessions of guided imagery relaxation techniques and four sessions of detuned ultrasound (U/S). The researcher performed all the sessions of Chiropractic SMT and detuned U/S while Dr A. Fourie (a registered Counselling Psychologist) performed the Guided Imagery sessions. In the initial visit patients in both groups had to undergo a history taking, physical examination and cervical spine regional examination. They were required to sign subject information and consent form and complete a Neck Disability Index (NDI) Questionnaire, Numerical Pain Rating Scale and the Stress Questionnaire. The researcher measured their cervical range of motion on the first and last treatments. The objective and subjective data was collected on the first visit and again on the final visit.

Dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s degree in technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2013. / Background: Forward head posture (FHP) is a common postural abnormality that is commonly associated with weak deep cervical flexor muscles (DCF). The craniovertebral (CV) angle lies between a horizontal line running through C7 spinous process and a line connecting the C7 spinous process to the tragus of the ear. The smaller the angle, the greater the forward head posture. Weak DCF musculature and FHP has been linked to cervical dysfunction in the short and long term such as cervicogenic headache and premature development of cervical regional degenerative joint disease. Improving isometric endurance and neuromotor control of the DCF muscles using craniocervical flexion exercise (CCFE) has been shown to be efficient in patients experiencing cervical dysfunction such as headache, although the relevance of CCFE has not been established in the asymptomatic group. Deficiency in the activity of these muscles can be accurately measured using craniocervical flexion testing (CCFT). There is a paucity of information regarding the definitive relationship between weakness of the DCF and FHP in asymptomatic participants. This research will help establish an efficient and safe prophylactic treatment protocol preventing long term sequela associated with FHP. Objectives: To determine the effect of CCFE on cervical posture by assessment of the CV angle in asymptomatic participants as well as to determine the effect of CCFE on cervical range of motion by assessment of flexion, extension, bilateral rotation and lateral flexion movements in asymptomatic participants whilst measuring the effect of CCFE on isometric endurance and neuromotor control of the DCF muscles assessed by the CCFT in asymptomatic participants. Method: This is a quantitative pre/post intervention study comparing the results of one group of 45 asymptomatic participants before and after the CCFE protocol has been allocated to them over a period of 3-5 weeks. Participants FHP was assessed by measuring the CV angle. This was done by marking the C7 spinous process and extending a horizontal line toward the shoulder. Then marking the tragus of the ipsilateral ear and measuring the angle using the smart tool angle finder (MD products). iv CCFT measurements were taken and the CCFE protocol allocated to those who qualified to take part in the study. Lastly, cervical range of motion was measured. This group received a home exercise protocol of 3 sets of 10 supine chin tucks daily with each repetition being held for 10 seconds. The technique was first ensured by the researcher prior to leaving the consultation rooms and an exercise diary was given to the participant until the 5th and final consultation to record the progress and efficiency of the home programme as well as any complaints regarding this. Result: The asymptomatic group included in the study improved in both the seated and standing CV angle measurements in that the CV was greater at the conclusion of the pre/post intervention (p=0.00000002) and (p=0.000003) respectively . Cervical range of motion showed improvement in some but not all ranges. Flexion showed a reduction in range of motion (p=0.0086) which was significant. Extension showed an improvement in range of motion (p=0.0000002) which was significant. Rotation toward the left (p=0.00003) and right (p=0.00063) showed an improvement in range of motion which was significant. Lateral flexion showed improvement which was not significant in both, left (p=0.0145) and right (p= 0.24985) ranges of motion. Neuromotor control showed 100 percent improvement in that all 45 of the participants were able to perform CCFT correctly through all five stages at conclusion of the study. Conclusion: Therefore it can be concluded that asymptomatic participants will benefit from CCFEs In terms of CV angle improvement, cervical range of motion as well as neuromotor control of the DCF muscles.

Thesis (M.Tech.: Chiropractic)- Dept. of Chiropractic, Durban Institute of Technology, 2006. 130 leaves. / The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of the adjustment of the first rib as an adjunct to the manipulative treatment of mechanical neck pain, according to subjective and objective clinical findings. The results of this study would indicate to Chiropractors which specific types of adjustments, used for the treatment of mechanical neck pain, would potentially increase the cervical range of motion and / or decrease pain experienced by the patient and thus lead to a more effective treatment protocol. The outcome of the study will help clinicians select the more appropriate treatment for patients based on the subjective and objective outcomes.

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Health at the Durban University of Technology in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master‟s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, 2009. / The prevalence of neck pain in musculoskeletal practice is second only to that of low back pain (Vernon et al., 2007). There is a growing interest in neck pain research due to the escalating disability burden and compensation costs associated with neck pain (Côte et al., 2003). Manual therapies are commonly used in the treatment of neck pain (Côte et al., 2003). After an extensive literature review by Haldeman et al. (2008) they found that manual therapy techniques have some benefit but no one technique was clearly superior to the next. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare three commonly used manual therapy techniques in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare three different manual therapy techniques (SMT, MET and PNF) which are commonly used in the treatment of chronic MNP in terms of range of motion, pain and disability. METHOD Forty-five patients with chronic mechanical neck pain were obtained through non-probability convenience sampling and assigned into one of three treatment groups (15 per group) using a computer generated randomized table. The three different treatment groups were: Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT), Muscle Energy Technique (MET) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF). Each group received six treatments over a period of three weeks with a follow-up consultation. Measurements were taken at the first, third and sixth treatment and at the follow-up consultation. SPSS version 15.0 was used to analyse the data. A p value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. An intra-group analysis was done using repeated measures ANOVA testing to assess the time effect for each outcome separately. For inter-group analyses the time x group interaction effect was assessed using repeated measures ANOVA testing, and profile plots were used to assess the trend and direction of the effects. RESULTS Intra-group analysis of the results revealed that all three groups improved significantly between the first and the final consultation, for all measures. Inter-group analysis of the data did not show any difference between the three groups by the end of the final consultation. However, extension range of motion appeared to improve slightly faster in the PNF group iv but it was not significant when compared to the other two groups. Therefore, there was no statistical significance between the three groups. CONCLUSION It was concluded that all three treatment groups responded equally to the treatment, thus, suggesting that MET or PNF techniques can be used if SMT is contra-indicated.

A dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for a Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban Institute of Technology, 2006. / The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of the adjustment of the first rib as an adjunct to the manipulative treatment of mechanical neck pain, according to subjective and objective clinical findings. The results of this study would indicate to Chiropractors which specific types of adjustments, used for the treatment of mechanical neck pain, would potentially increase the cervical range of motion and / or decrease pain experienced by the patient and thus lead to a more effective treatment protocol. The outcome of the study will help clinicians select the more appropriate treatment for patients based on the subjective and objective outcomes. / M

Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Health at the Durban University of Technology in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master‟s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, 2009. / The prevalence of neck pain in musculoskeletal practice is second only to that of low back pain (Vernon et al., 2007). There is a growing interest in neck pain research due to the escalating disability burden and compensation costs associated with neck pain (Côte et al., 2003). Manual therapies are commonly used in the treatment of neck pain (Côte et al., 2003). After an extensive literature review by Haldeman et al. (2008) they found that manual therapy techniques have some benefit but no one technique was clearly superior to the next. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare three commonly used manual therapy techniques in the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare three different manual therapy techniques (SMT, MET and PNF) which are commonly used in the treatment of chronic MNP in terms of range of motion, pain and disability. METHOD Forty-five patients with chronic mechanical neck pain were obtained through non-probability convenience sampling and assigned into one of three treatment groups (15 per group) using a computer generated randomized table. The three different treatment groups were: Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT), Muscle Energy Technique (MET) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF). Each group received six treatments over a period of three weeks with a follow-up consultation. Measurements were taken at the first, third and sixth treatment and at the follow-up consultation. SPSS version 15.0 was used to analyse the data. A p value of <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. An intra-group analysis was done using repeated measures ANOVA testing to assess the time effect for each outcome separately. For inter-group analyses the time x group interaction effect was assessed using repeated measures ANOVA testing, and profile plots were used to assess the trend and direction of the effects. RESULTS Intra-group analysis of the results revealed that all three groups improved significantly between the first and the final consultation, for all measures. Inter-group analysis of the data did not show any difference between the three groups by the end of the final consultation. However, extension range of motion appeared to improve slightly faster in the PNF group iv but it was not significant when compared to the other two groups. Therefore, there was no statistical significance between the three groups. CONCLUSION It was concluded that all three treatment groups responded equally to the treatment, thus, suggesting that MET or PNF techniques can be used if SMT is contra-indicated. / M

Dissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Technikon Natal, Durban, 2001. / For neck pain, the first-line treatment of allopathic physicians is usually the prescription on non-steroidal ant-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), whereas the firstline treatment of chiropractic physicians is usually cervical manipulation. The literature shows that both chiropractic manipulation alone and NSAIDs alone are effective for the treatment of cervical facet syndrome, with chiropractic manipulation being much safer than the use of NSAIDs. Furthermore, patients that receive chiropractic care have been shown to generally be much more satisfied than those that receive conventional medical care. The aim of this study was to determine the short-term effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation as compared to Piroxicam administration in the treatment of chronic cervical facet syndrome. The study design that was chosen was that of a comparative clinical trial. Forty consecutive patients diagnosed with chronic facet syndrome of the cervical spine were randomly assigned to either the manipulation group or the NSAID group (twenty patients in each group). Each patient in group A received manipulative therapy of the cervical spine on three consecutive days. Each patient in group B received 40 mg of Adco Piroxicam on the first two days of treatment, and 20 mg daily for the remainder of the seven day treatment period. The patients were assessed by means of objective and subjective data obtained before each consultation on days 1, 3 and 7. The objective data was gathered from algometric pressure-pain threshold readings over the involved facet joint. The subjective information was obtained from the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale - 101 and the CMCC Neck Disability Index, as well as the patients perceived improvement which was recorded as a percentage on days 3 and 7. / M

M.Tech. / Purpose: This study aims to compare the effects of chiropractic manipulation versus mobilisation on Pressure Pain Threshold in chronic posterior mechanical cervical spine pain sufferers with regards to pain, disability and cervical spine range of motion. These effects were evaluated using a questionnaire consisting of a McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a Vernon – Mior Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaire, and by measuring cervical spine range of motion using a Goniometer as well as Algometer readings over the restricted facet joint/s in the cervical spine. The questionnaires were completed and the range of motion readings and algometer readings were taken prior to treatment on the first, fourth and seventh consultations. Method: Thirty participants who met the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups of equal size (15 participants each). Group one received spinal manipulation to restricted cervical spine joint/s. The second group received spinal mobilisation to restricted cervical spine joint/s. Participants were treated six times out of a total of seven sessions, over a maximum three week period. Procedure: Subjective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth consultations, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a Vernon – Mior Neck Pain and Disability Questionnaire in order to assess pain and disability levels. Objective data was collected at the beginning of the first and fourth session, as well as on the seventh consultation by means of a Goniometer and Algometer in order to assess cervical spine range of motion and to measure the Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s in the cervical spine. Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician. Results: Clinically significant improvements in group 1 and group 2 were noted over the duration of the study with reference to pain, disability, and cervical spine range of motion. Statistically significant changes were noted in group 1 and group 2 with reference to pain and disability, and in group 1 and group 2 with v reference to certain cervical spine range of motions as well as algometer readings to measure the Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s. Conclusion: The results show that both spinal manipulation and mobilization are effective treatment protocols (as demonstrated clinically, and to a lesser extent, statistically) in decreasing pain and disability, and increasing cervical spine range of motion and most importantly Pressure Pain Threshold at the restricted facet joint/s in patients with chronic posterior mechanical cervical spine pain. Although the study did not allow for a definite conclusion to be drawn, the results suggest that Chiropractic manipulative therapy is an effective treatment protocol to increase the Pressure Pain Threshold in chronic posterior mechanical neck pain sufferers. The advantage of this is that the treatment modality is used to its full potential, thereby providing the patient with the best results in terms of lasting benefits. It also shows that in cases where manipulation is contra-indicated mobilization will have a similar effect, but the long term benefits are questionable.

M.Tech. / Purpose: This study was undertaken in order to demonstrate the effects of static magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points in the treatment of those suffering from mechanical neck pain. Isolated spinal manipulative therapy of the cervical spine was compared to spinal manipulative therapy of the cervical spine in conjunction with magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points using both objective and subjective measurements. Before the execution of this study, it was hypothesised that both treatment protocols would be effective in the treatment of mechanical neck pain, although the combined therapy would be more effective. Method: Patients were recruited by way of advertisements placed in and around the University of Johannesburg, Doornfontein campus and their health clinic. Thirty patients with mechanical neck pain were recruited and randomly divided into two groups. Group one received manipulation to the affected joints of the cervical spine and group two received manipulation to the cervical spine combined with magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points. Procedure: Each patient in each group attended six treatment sessions; three in the first week and three in the second week. The Vernon Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index and the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (subjective measurements) were completed by each patient and the Cervical Range of Motion instrument (objective measurements) was used to collect readings from each patient in both the control and experimental groups, subjective and objective measurements were taken before treatment one, three and six. Specific treatment protocols were then adhered to. Results: The results indicated that both treatment protocols were effective in reducing mechanical neck pain although not one group was more effective than VI the other. Both groups improved subjectively and objectively as they had cervical spinal manipulation directed at joint dysfunction. Conclusion: The experimental group who received spinal manipulative therapy to correct joint dysfunction in conjunction with magnetic field therapy on acupuncture points was not more effective than the control group who received spinal manipulation only, in the treatment of mechanical neck pain.

M.Tech. / Purpose: Posterior mechanical neck pain is considered a debilitating musculoskeletal problem and is one of the most common reasons for visiting an emergency sector (Murphy, 2000). This study aims to compare the effects of Chiropractic manipulative therapy directed at the thoracic spine to that directed at the cervical spine for the treatment of chronic neck pain with regards to pain, disability and cervical range of motion. Method: This study was a comparative study and consisted of two groups of fifteen. The participants were between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, with a half male to female ratio. The potential participants were examined and accepted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The method of treatment administered to each participant was determined by group allocation. Group 1 received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy to restriction(s) of the upper thoracic region only. Group 2 received chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy to restriction(s) of the cervical spine only. Objective and subjective findings were based on the above treatment protocols. Procedure: Treatment consisted of six treatment consultations with an additional follow up consultation over a three week period, with two consultations being performed per week interval. Objective and subjective readings were taken at the beginning of the first, fourth and seventh consultations. Subjective readings were taken from the Vernon-Mior Neck Pain and Disability Index as well as from the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Objective readings were taken from measurements taken from the Cervical Range of Motion device (CROM). Analysis of collected data was performed by a statistician. The Chiropractic manipulative techniques used were based on restrictions identified during motion palpation and were applied at the first six consultations, with the seventh consultation consisting of data gathering only. Results: Clinically significant improvements in both Group 1 and Group 2 were seen over the course of the study with regards to cervical spine range of motion, pain and disability. However group 1 showed greater statistically significant improvements in their mean cervical range of motion whereas group 2 showed a greater statistically significant improvement in their subjective readings of pain and disability.